Currently browsing posts about: USDA

The USDA is at long last giving some attention—a small but significant first step—to reducing Salmonella contamination of poultry products.

Salmonella is a big problem in poultry and eggs.  For decades, food safety advocates have called on the USDA to declare Salmonella an adulterant.  Adulterated food is illegal to sell.

The poultry industry has resisted, arguing that chicken gets cooked before it is eaten; cooking kills Salmonella.

It does, but you don’t want toxic forms of Salmonella in your kitchen where they can get into other foods.  For background all this, see my book, Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety.

In a press release, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announces that it

is considering a regulatory framework for a new strategy to control Salmonella in poultry products and more effectively reduce foodborne Salmonella infections linked to these products…The most recent report from the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration estimates that over 23% of foodborne Salmonella illnesses are attributable to poultry consumption—almost
17% from chicken and over 6% from turkey.

The proposed Salmonalla framework has three components:

What FSIS is actually doing:

We will publish a proposed notice of determination to declare Salmonella an adulterant in NRTE [not ready to eat] breaded and stuffed chicken products in 2022, and we intend to publish additional proposed rules and policies implementing this strategy in 2023, with the goal of finalizing any rules by mid-2024.

The adulterant consideration only applies to breaded and stuffed chicken or turkey products that are likely to be microwaved but not necessarily thoroughly cooked.  It does not apply to plain, unbreaded and unstuffed poultry.

Consumer Reports finds lots of poultry to be contaminated with Salmonella.  Consumer Reports says Salmonella is “lethal but legal.”

Currently, a chicken processing facility is allowed to have salmonella in up to 9.8 percent of all whole birds it tests, 15.4 percent of all parts, and 25 percent of ground chicken. And producers that exceed these amounts are not prevented from selling the meat. If salmonella became an adulterant, even in some poultry products, it would help reduce the amount of contaminated meat that hits the market.

As might be expected, the National Chicken Council opposes the USDA’s proposed framework: “lacks data, research.”

the facts show that the Centers for Disease Control and FSIS’s own data demonstrate progress and clear reductions in Salmonella in U.S. chicken products.  “Increased consumer education about proper handling and cooking of raw meat must be part of any framework going forward…Proper handling and cooking of poultry is the last step, not the first, that will help eliminate any risk of foodborne illness. We’ll do our part to promote safety.”

The USDA has released its annual report on food insecurity.  The news is relatively good.

It’s even relatively good for households with children.

Why the sharp downturn?

USDA ducks this question (too political, I guess): “This report does not provide an analysis of possible causal explanations for prevalence or trends in food insecurity.”

But the reason is obvious:  increased participation in federal food assistance programs and higher benefits from those programs.

If people have more money for food, they will buy more food and feed their children better.

See:

• New York Times: Expanded Safety Net Drives Sharp Drop in Child Poverty
• Pandemic aid helped families’ nutrition and well-being — report, in Ag Insider
• Hunger Free America survey.  The survey data are  HERE.
• The school meals programs also helped, as this JAMA Open article documents.

And the USDA documents:

• Website 
• Summary report
• Household Food Security in the United States in 2021

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service was damaged serriously when the Trump Administration moved its offices out of Washington DC to Kansas, and it is taking some time to recover.

It’s still publishing what it calls Charts of Note.

These are on all kinds of topics dealing with farm production and food consumption.  Here are a couple of examples I found particularly interesting.

Here’s the first:

This one shows that small and medium size farms make money selling direct to consumers at farmers’ markets and via Community Supported Agriculture, but the largest farms benefit most from these opportunities.  Restaurants and grocery stores don’t source much from smaller farms and neither do regional distributors.

The challenge for small and medium size farms is to find more and better distribution channels.\

And here’s the second:

I picked this one because I like the design and because this watermelon has seeds.  You can hardly buy a watermelon with seeds anymore.

I’ve been convinced that seedless watermelons don’t taste as good as the ones with seeds.  This year, I bought some seeds from old-fashioned watermelon and planted them in my place in Ithaca, New York.   They are now ripe, and edible.  But alas: I don’t think they taste any better than the ones without seeds.

Next year, we plant seedless.

One big question: how do you get create seeds for seedless watermelons?   This, I had to look up.

Seedless melons are referred to as triploid melons while ordinary seeded watermelons are called diploid melons, meaning, that a typical watermelon has 22 chromosomes (diploid) while a seedless watermelon has 33 chromosomes (triploid). To produce a seedless watermelon, a chemical process is used to double the number of chromosomes. So, 22 chromosomes are doubled to 44, called a tetraploid. Then, the pollen from a diploid is placed on the female flower of the plant with 44 chromosomes. The resulting seed has 33 chromosomes, a triploid or seedless watermelon. The seedless watermelon is sterile. The plant will bear fruit with translucent, nonviable seeds or “eggs.”

Aren’t you glad I asked?

************

Coming soon!  My memoir coming out in October.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

USDA has finally proposed new rules to try to make the current poultry farming system a bit more fair to the people who actually raise the chickens.

Under the current system, the big poultry producers get the benefits while the chicken farmers take all the risks.  The companies supply the chicks; the farmers pay for the houses, equipment, and management—and take on immense debt to do so.

They are paid according to a tournament system.  Farmers who produce the most amount of chicken using the least amount of feed are paid the most; others get less.  But the farmers do not control the quality of the chicks they receive.  They also sell to only one buyer, a system with its own name, monopsony.

John Oliver did a synopsis of the tournaent system in 2015.

Hence the new rule: Transparency in Poultry Grower Contracting and Tournaments.  This does not get rid of the tournament system, unfortunately, but it does require poultry companies to disclose key information to growers about realistic outcomes before making important contracting decisions such as capital investments, and about key inputs.

The point is to enable growers to understand the terms of their contracts so as to have a better chance to compete.

• USDA is seeking comments on this proposed rule and also on additional steps it could take to enhance fairness and address concerns about the tournament system.  Poultry Growing Tournament Systems: Fairness and Related Concerns is available for comment until Sept. 6, 2022, at www.regulations.gov.
• For more information, see Agricultural Competition: A Plan in Support of Fair and Competitive Markets.

Also see:

• Government Accountability Project whistleblower complaints against the tournament system
• Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future — Letter to State Attorneys General on Protecting Contract Chicken Farmers from Unfair Business Practices.
• Survey Results: Marylanders Support a Fair Poultry Industry and Stronger Government Oversight
• Civil Eats op-ed on ending the tournament system

According to Politico, advocates for a fairer system are complaining that the largest poultry companies are pressuring farmers to oppose the USDA’s proposed rule and providing them with form letters to send in.

The USDA acknowledged these complaints when it announced an extension of the public comment period.

USDA is taking these steps to help ensure the integrity of the Federal rulemaking process and to ensure all parties have the opportunity to fully comment.

“There is fear throughout the meat and poultry industry as we saw earlier this year at two separate Congressional hearings where witnesses did not testify due to concerns of retaliation,” Vilsack said. “But it is still critical that we hear the full story, so we are highlighting the option for comments to be provided anonymously.”

Politico says that as of Aug. 18, the USDA had received at least 350 public comments.  According to its analysis, at least 200 of public comments support the rule, though some supporters have significant reservations and are imploring USDA to go further.

At the request of Congress, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has just released “Added Sugars in School Meals and Competitive Foods.”  The report itself is at this link.

The idea was to find out whether schools were meeting the 10% standard: meals and snacks were not to exceed 10% of calories from added sugars.

Note: the 10% is meant to be a ceiling, not a floor.

The report’s Key Findings

• Practically all—92%—of school breakfasts had 10% or more of calories from added sugars.
• The majority of schools—69%—served lunches with 10% percent or more calories from added sugars.
• The main source of added sugars in school meals is flavored (e.g., chocolate) fat-free milk; this contributed 29% of the added sugars in breakfasts and 47% in lunches.
• Of the 10 most popular a la carte food items available at breakfast, 6 exceeded the 10% maximum for added sugars.
• Of the 10 most popular a la carte food items available at lunch, four exceeded the 10% maximum.

Mind you, this says nothing about sweet snacks and candy used as rewards, treats, snacks, or celebrations in classrooms.

But if you want to know why nutritionists like me would like to see chocolate milk mostly kept out of schools, here’s why.

You would think the beleaguered FDA would have better things to do.

It sent out a press release announcing new “Feed Your Mind” materials to increase public and professional understanding of GMOs, in partnershipwith USDA and EPA.

My first question: Who paid for this?

The answer:

Funding for the “Feed Your Mind” initiative was provided by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 to conduct “consumer outreach and education regarding agricultural biotechnology and biotechnology derived food products and animal feed, including through publication and distribution of science-based educational information on the environmental, nutritional, food safety, economic, and humanitarian impacts of such biotechnology, food products, and feed.”  More funds were provided through 2018 and 2019 Appropriations bills.

How’s that for effective lobbying by the food biotechnology industry!

Why do I think this is pro-GMO propaganda?

I started with the Discussion Guide for Health Educators.  It has just a few questions and answers.  For example:

Q.  Are GMO’s safe to eat?

A.  Yes…they are just as safe to eat as non-GMO foods.

Q.  Is here a link between GMOs and cancer?

A.  No.  GMO crops are not changed in ways that would increase the risk of cancer for humans or animals.

I don’t think these answers are necessarily wrong.  They just don’t tell the whole story.

These materials have nothing to say about:

• Consolidation in the biotechnology industry
• Corporate control of commodity agriculture
• Glyphosate, the herbicide used with GMOs and considered carcinogenic by international health agencies and US courts
• How GMO crops have taken over, driving out everyone else
• How pesticides used on GMO crops contaminate organic production
• The ways GMO companies harrass independent farmers by enforcing intellectual property rights
• How the Farm Bill subsidizes GMO corn and soybeans, causing them to be overproduced and corn to be used for ethanol
• Congress’s absurd Bioengineered labeling, widely ignored.
• The consequent lack of transparency in the supermarket

No wonder so many people look for Non-GMO labels on food products.

Take a look at these materials and judge for yourself (I particularly recommend the video for consumers).  It and the rest are quite short.

• A video and infographic for consumers:
  • Video: “GMOs, Farm to Table”
  • Infographic: “Where Can You Find GMOs?”
• A video and discussion guide for health educators:
  • Video: “GMOs and Food Safety: A Guide for Health Educators”
  • Discussion Guide: “A Question of GMOs”
• A video and factsheet developed in partnership with the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics for registered dietitians (RDs)/registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) and nutrition and dietetics technicians, registered (NDTRs). Interested RDs/RDNs and NDTRs can earn free continuing education units through the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ EatRight® Store.
  • Video: “Understanding GMOs”
  • Factsheet: “Understanding GMOs”

For More Information

• Feed Your Mind – Agricultural Biotechnology Initiative
• Resources for Healthcare Professionals
• FDA Releases New “Feed Your Mind” Consumer Education Materials (September 2020)

Last week, the USDA announced its new Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient.

The Framework document is long and hard to read.  Here’s a summary:

Framework goals:

• Building a more resilient food supply chain that provides more and better market options for consumers and producers while reducing carbon pollution
• Creating a fairer food system that combats market dominance and helps producers and consumers gain more power in the marketplace by creating new, more and better local market options
• Making nutritious food more accessible and affordable for consumers
• Emphasizing equity

Framework actions: where the money goes:

Food production

• $300 million for an Organic Transition Initiative
• $75 million for urban agriculture

Food processing

• $100 million for the Food Supply Chain Loan Guarantee Program
• $375 million to expand independent meat and poultry processing
• 25 million for Meat and Poultry Processing Capacity Technical Assistance
• $275 million for credit access for processors
•  $100 million to support processing worker training and safety
• $200 million for Food Safety Certification for Specialty Crops
• $600 million to support food supply chain infrastructure

Food distribution and aggregation

• $400 million for regional food business centers
• $60 million to leverage commodity purchases through Farm-to-School
• $90 million to prevent and reduce food loss and waste

Food markets & Consumers

• $155 million for food access in underserved communities (Healthy Food Financing Initiative)
• $50 million for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program
• $40 million for the GusNIP [Gus Schumacher] Produce Prescriptions Program.
• $25 million for SNAP technology improvements
• $100 million to create a Healthy Food Incentive Fund for schools

Civil Eats has an interview with Secretary Vilsack about all this.  Its point:

While it’s billed as a “transformation,” the framework does not change the foundational structures or practices of the American food system. It does, however, emphasize regionalism, support for organic and urban farming, and nutrition in new ways. That’s a significant shift for the agency, which has historically prioritized efficiency over all else.

The White House was also at work last week.  It released an Action Plan on Global Water Security.

Summary: FACT SHEET: Vice President Harris Announces Action Plan on Global Water Security and Highlights the Administration’s Work to Build Drought Resilience.

Strategies (Pillars):

• Pillar 1: Advancing U.S. leadership in the global effort to achieve universal and equitable access to sustainable, climate-resilient, safe, and effectively managed WASH services without increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Pillar 2: Promoting sustainable management and protection of water resources and associated ecosystems to support economic growth, build resilience, mitigate the risk of instability or conflict, and increase cooperation.
• Pillar 3: Ensuring that multilateral action mobilizes cooperation and promotes water security.

Will any of this do real good?  Specific initiatives will benefit from the increased funding.

Transforming the food system?  Not quite yet.